A longtime Fraser grocer today plans to file a lawsuit against federal officials claiming they illegally seized thousands of dollars from their bank account for allegedly violating bank reporting requirements without a hearing.

Tarik “Terry” Dehko and his daughter Sandra Thomas, who own Schott’s Supermarket on 14 Mile Road, say the Internal Revenue Service seized $36,651 in January even though they weren’t charged with any crime — and they want their money back.

“My suppliers are giving me a hard time because I can’t pay them on time because the government took our money,” Terry Dehko said Tuesday. “If I was a murderer, the court would at least give me a bond. I have done nothing wrong.”

The IRS used an obscure federal anti-money laundering statute to seize the supermarket’s bank account from a nearby PNC Bank. The allegation is Dehko violated federal banking laws by making frequent deposits of their store’s receipts in amounts less than $10,000. Under a federal law tied to the USA Patriot Act of 2001, banks are required to report deposits over $10,000 to the IRS.

Advertisement

But the grocers say there is nothing illegal about depositing lesser amounts when they have a legitimate business purpose.

In two filings, they will ask for declaratory and injunctive relief to affirm they did not break the law and will seek a prompt hearing on the seized funds, which are used for payroll and operating purposes.

Named in the suits are Attorney General Eric Holder, Acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel and Barbara McQuade, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Gina Balaya, a spokeswoman for McQuade, said the office could not comment because it has not yet been served with the complaint.

Terry Dehko was born in Iraq and moved to the United States in 1970. He became an American citizen in 1974 and purchased Schott’s Supermarket four years later. The store, located less than a block from Fraser City Hall, has been part of the community over the years by helping to sponsor fireworks and other city-related events.

They have enlisted the Institute for Justice, a Virginia-based legal think tank with a Libertarian bent that is critical of forfeiture laws. Larry Salzman, an attorney with the institute, blames the IRS and federal prosecutors for running a “recklessly sloppy investigation” involving Schott’s Supermarket.

He noted the IRS in 2012 conducted a routine audit of the store’s policies to make sure it complies with federal anti-money laundering laws and found no violations. A few months later, the cash was seized.

“Had they bothered to ask, they would have found out why Terry and Sandy make their deposits the way they do,” Salzman said.

Since the store takes in a significant amount of cash each day, the company’s policy is to make a deposit to avoid letting too much cash accumulate at the store, which would pose a risk of robbery, he said. Also, the store’s insurance policy limits coverage of losses of cash to $10,000, which is a common provision for small businesses.

The law makes it illegal to “structure” deposits or withdrawals to avoid the IRS reporting requirements.

A former Assistant U.S. Attorney who has taught seminars on government drug forfeiture strategy calls the law a “strong-armed tool” that is used to strip drug dealers of assets purchased with ill-gotten gains in criminal cases, but is murkier when used in civil actions.

“The government’s rationale for seizing the money right away, whether there is evidence of skirting reporting laws or not, is if you have a hearing first, the subject will probably hide their deposits elsewhere,” said Gary Maveal, a University of Detroit Mercy Law School professor.

“If the agency is convinced that this case is honestly acquired money, are they really going to keep the forfeited money just because of the structured transactions? They’re probably looking now at tax records to see if there is a criminal case.”